Oh come on. All results to date have been negative, or the methods shot down as highly flawed. There has been no investigation that has made a well trained observer think "hey, what's going on there?". There is nothing that would currently make a dispassionate observer say there was something worth throwing serious resources at, to investigate further. However, if someone started getting positive results, that people couldn't find the flaws in, it would most certainly be a game changer.

Why are you telling me this? I'm asking MrW0lf. Nothing here reflects my thoughts on the matter and I don't really see how you would think they do.

Oh come on. All results to date have been negative, or the methods shot down as highly flawed. There has been no investigation that has made a well trained observer think "hey, what's going on there?". There is nothing that would currently make a dispassionate observer say there was something worth throwing serious resources at, to investigate further. However, if someone started getting positive results, that people couldn't find the flaws in, it would most certainly be a game changer.

Why are you telling me this? I'm asking MrW0lf. Nothing here reflects my thoughts on the matter and I don't really see how you would think they do.

You questioned something that seems indisputable. If there were anything to dowsing, beyond picking up on environmental cues and making good predictions based on them, I can't see any way to classify it as other than ground breaking. Question dowsing for sensible reasons, such as the lack of any apparent phenomena which still lack an explanation at this time.

You questioned something that seems indisputable. If there were anything to dowsing, beyond picking up on environmental cues and making good predictions based on them, I can't see any way to classify it as other than ground breaking. Question dowsing for sensible reasons, such as the lack of any apparent phenomena which still lack an explanation at this time.

Again, I'm asking MrW0lf, as to understand his point of view and reasoning correctly. I'm not taking any position. I'm not questioning fact. I'm questioning MrW0lf's position. You seem to be barking up the wrong tree.

Yup, I agree that people can have two completely opposite beliefs in their head at the same time. I said that earlier. So? I might have the same problem. The difference is that I will discard the belief that has no basis once I am conscious of the problem. Many people in the world do not seem to be able to do so and go through huge mental gymnastics to make them fit. I have been observing this my whole life as an atheist. I have been the victim of those who do this all my life also. Yes, a victim.

I'm not sure you go my point - probably because I didn't exactly make it clear. You seem to believe that you can pick and choose what you believe in, and 'consciously discard' any thought/belief that you deem to be unreasonable, or without evidence. I'm aware this is tantamount to me saying 'I know more about your thoughts than you do' which of course I do not, but I also believe that we fool ourselves very easily, and no-one can somehow 'rise above' this and claim to be purely rational. As I have said before the scientific method exists for this very reason.

The trouble with cognitive bias is, being aware of such bias actually increases the effect.

Our thoughts can be random, and whilst we can choose to act on those those, by either consciously thinking about an idea further, or go off to do research, or think of something else, simply claiming you can discard such beliefs or very basic assumptions (as in so basic, you never question them) you are fooling yourself. One just has to accept that much of what we believe in is subconscious, and that drives how we see the world. You can change this by exposing yourself to new experiences, forcing yourself to read articles that you strongly disagree with (which generally only has the effect of strengthening your original stance, but at least allows you to see the other side).

I'm sorry to steer this thread into philosophy. I wasn't actually arguing against you Lightages, at least on the subject of dowsing. Its just you seem genuinely upset and very frustrated - saying you're a 'victim'. ? How exactly are you a victim? because others believe something you do not? I don't see how those who believe in dowsing can oppress you. Most likely the vast majority of the planet believe in things you do not, in terms of our own beliefs, we are all our own minority. I too get annoyed, but ultimately it is the way the world is.

I agree that "people go through huge mental gymnastics to make it fit" - thats actually a bloody good quote because that is exactly people do for core beliefs that go against evidence. But this goes for all beliefs, not just the ones you deem 'irrational'. Just look at the Copenhagen interpretation in Quantum Mechanics, or the 'many worlds' scenario, people throwing away common sense just to make a theory fit. I actually tried to not mention QM because it seems to be invoked to explain 'woo' quite a lot, by those who clearly don't understand just how distasteful QM theories are.

I think we are arguing the same thing. But I do have to say that certain people seem to be more susceptible not seeing a problem or not wanting to see a problem with their world view. IMHO this is a learned behavior that might b attributed to being taught that Santa Claus exists, and other irrational beliefs, when the person is forming their personality.

I have been a victim many times of those who believe in a god. As soon as it was known that I was an atheist I got shunned, castigated in public as a child, and refused work and jobs.

This is why I get upset. If someone believes that some kind of reported phenomenon is possible even against reason and evidence, then it is just one step further to believe that immunizing your children against diseases is maybe a bad thing. Irrational belief breeds more irrational belief and it harms everyone when it goes to how people make decisions that inevitably affect others. It is about a way of thinking and science has been the most reliable tool we have to counter woowoo thinking.

Unfortunately some people are not reachable and they will do what they in face of the facts because it feels good, makes them special, from fear, and many other reasons. I have no hope of being able to reason with them but rather it is the others who might be reading, watching or hearing the conversation, who might want to actually think that I hope to open their minds.

Again, I'm asking MrW0lf, as to understand his point of view and reasoning correctly.

Reasoning is that in blind (?) hate for anything out of the box debunkers/pseudoskeptics force phenomenon of dowsing into framework of magic and lure people into doing conceptually wrong tests. Secondly debunkers completely ignore all scientifically sound information on the subject. Result is pseudoscientific circus and malicious manipulation of public opinion. Actual standing science points to fact that practical value of dowsing for layperson is interfacing/programming subconsciousness to automatically perform tasks incl. those fairly problematic or even impossible for conscious execution. So essentially it is a biological lifehack.

Again, I'm asking MrW0lf, as to understand his point of view and reasoning correctly.

Reasoning is that in blind (?) hate for anything out of the box debunkers/pseudoskeptics force phenomenon of dowsing into framework of magic and lure people into doing conceptually wrong tests. Secondly debunkers completely ignore all scientifically sound information on the subject. Result is pseudoscientific circus and malicious manipulation of public opinion. Actual standing science points to fact that practical value of dowsing for layperson is interfacing/programming subconsciousness to automatically perform tasks incl. those fairly problematic or even impossible for conscious execution. So essentially it is a biological lifehack.

FYI, I wouldn’t call Cold War Era research from former Soviet Bloc countries “scientifically sound information”.

It’s not. Not by a long shot. Show me research that has been duplicated elsewhere, by other scientists. That’s the real key to science, repeatability. Unless I can take your methods and setup an equivalent experiment under similar conditions and get the same results, it’s not scientific proof of anything.

Again, I'm asking MrW0lf, as to understand his point of view and reasoning correctly.

Reasoning is that in blind (?) hate for anything out of the box debunkers/pseudoskeptics force phenomenon of dowsing into framework of magic and lure people into doing conceptually wrong tests. Secondly debunkers completely ignore all scientifically sound information on the subject. Result is pseudoscientific circus and malicious manipulation of public opinion. Actual standing science points to fact that practical value of dowsing for layperson is interfacing/programming subconsciousness to automatically perform tasks incl. those fairly problematic or even impossible for conscious execution. So essentially it is a biological lifehack.

FYI, I wouldn’t call Cold War Era research from former Soviet Bloc countries “scientifically sound information”.

It’s not. Not by a long shot. Show me research that has been duplicated elsewhere, by other scientists. That’s the real key to science, repeatability. Unless I can take your methods and setup an equivalent experiment under similar conditions and get the same results, it’s not scientific proof of anything.

Nobody has been able to do that with dowsing.

Ordinarily I would agree, but what if only a small proportion of the population is sensitive to woowoo radiation from water which makes dowsing work? How are you going to duplicate the methodology in your lab?

...what if only a small proportion of the population is sensitive to woowoo radiation from water which makes dowsing work? How are you going to duplicate the methodology in your lab?

Obviously only those individuals who possess the magical woowoo receptor will be able to successfully show any statistically significant improvement over pure chance on any proper, scientifically valid test.

Ordinarily I would agree, but what if only a small proportion of the population is sensitive to woowoo radiation from water which makes dowsing work? How are you going to duplicate the methodology in your lab?

There are a lot of things known to science to which only a few people are sensitive.

[Ordinarily I would agree, but what if only a small proportion of the population is sensitive to woowoo radiation from water which makes dowsing work? How are you going to duplicate the methodology in your lab?

Only a few qualities are present in just a small part of the population, such as colour blindness or have a 4th set of colour sensors in the eye. However, many physical and intellectual qualities are pretty weak in most people, and you need to look through quite a lot of people so find qualities as basic as the ability to handle the most advanced maths questions. We have no problems devising methods to flush these people out and study their special qualities.

15 pages so far and not one proof but a whole bunch of anecdotes and vague hand waving. I have put forth a challenge that could net somebody a nice amount of money and provide evidence for dowsing or evidence that it does not work and not one taker. Not one controlled test with positive results has been provided. When does one stop believing? When does one quit trying to argue against ideas when the person holding the idea ignores the evidence against their position?

Classical dowsing is about finding water in the field. Want to test for that track actual drilling teams, collect stats etc. You know, normal calm scientific approach w/o circus. Who knows what info is there to pick up when situation is natural. After all animals have no trouble finding all the stuff they need in situation where urbanized human would kick the bucket rather soon.Substituting that for artificial testing w/o proper understanding will not yield controlled test and therefore is invalid. Also carefully ignoring ideomotor phenomenon subject is rather weird. It is potentially very useful even when falling short of magic (or pure ESP). Did you read the references, cool stuff IMHO.Even more suspicios is what there is so dangerous about dowsing so it is constant focus of heavily funded* organizations? Always when there is funding there is also profit somewhere in sight. What profit might be in keeping humans as helpless and incapable as possible... hmm... maybe some clues on this pic?

We will NOT accept suggestions, applications or proposals for these grants. We hope they will come as a pleasant surprise to the recipients, just as Randi's MacArthur foundation grant was a pleasant surprise to him.

My grandfather worked for the water board in Ashton under lyne in the U.K. He used to carry divining rods to trace pipes. The divining rods must have been very old and looked like Victorian engineering. Two handles with pivoted telescopic pointers. He used to keep them in the car and I remember playing with them whenever he visited. He also used to have a military type metal detector very big and heavy but it only worked for cast iron pipes. I did try them a few times and they did appear to work. I know my grandfather used to use them every day so I assume they must have worked. The box the rods came in had some sample materials, if you held a sample of the pipe material in your hand the pointer would uncross.

Well it sounds like madness to me, but it worked for my grandad used to go out on jobs with him before the days of health and safety and I witnessed them in action many times. I assume they tap into the human subconscious and readings are based on the users experience rather than some woohoo.

Well that’s nearly 40 years ago now and I often think back and wonder how it worked, but I am convinced that somehow they did aid in tracing pipes. I wish I had those divining rods the were a engineering thing of beauty.

I'm just going to leave this here as some needed 'out of the box thinking'...

At the quantum mechanics level the logical rules break down. Observing something makes it conform to a state instead of an indeterminate state where anything is possible. If observing something is defined as an act of consciousness or will to observe, then a lack or change of consciousness/will could prevent or alter this observer limitation.If this assumption is true then performing dowsing yourself and believing to work may produce a different outcome to performing it scientifically under controlled and recorded conditions.Trying to explain/analyse something could very well prevent it from working.

I know my grandfather used to use them every day so I assume they must have worked.

Quote

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.

Why do you think people think horoscopes and fortune tellers do work. Because they are told vague things what applies to most of people, and try to find how anything told applies/works to them. And don't remember things which did not. In case of fortune tellers, fortune teller can even read your reaction to improve their BS. In case of dowsing, you act as fortune teller for yourself. Unconsciously affecting your movements guided by your expectations.

A telecom tech used two rods to find the telephone line in my front garden. But after he used a groundradar/sonar thing (forgot to ask what it was). Besides that he had a map. He let me try and it seemed to work. I am no believer in this kinda things so I spend some time doing tests.

My findings were that it did not work unless I knew where the DUT was. I found out that the slightest movement of your head/neck/back (downward looking at the DUT) gave the same reaction. And because he knew where the line must be (and I too because I tried after the digging) I think it works by the same effect. It also worked when I walked towards a wall (with open eyes) Besides that he was about a meter wrong.